I got the train bug biteing again What size ballast should I use for HO scale track fine med or course I whnt to use woodland scenics material my layout will be based on east of the Mississippi along the CSX lines
I have found that fine ballast looks closest to scale in HO. John Timm
Go small. Anything bigger than your typical grain of sugar or salt is too big. You would want something about 1/32" or 0.75 mm.
-Crandell
Almost any size ballast looks OK to the naked eye but once you start taking photos of your layout, few things are more tell tale than oversized ballast, especially if applied in ways that the prototype cannot do, such as stuck to the side of the rail or piled up in ways that gravity would not allow.
When you just glance at ballasted track on the prototype you hardly notice the individual stones or rocks. It is a texture. That is what we should be going for. That is why, if properly painted and weathered, some of these makes of track where the track is integral to the roadbed and cast plastic “ballast” can actually look pretty darn good.
During a recent railfan jaunt my buddy carefully lined up ballast across a tie (on a siding, not the main, so we were safe doing this) to see how many pieces of ballast it took. It was usually 5 to 8 pieces. He found that the ballast he was using on his HO layout was way oversized when he compared what he could do on his layout, because there it was 4 to 6 pieces, and some makes of plastic flex track ties are wider than prototype.
One additional factor – the inevitable “on the other hand” [;)] – is that if you seek to replicate what the prototype does, with smaller ballast in yards and sidings than on the main, then if you use the finest ballast you can find for yards and sidings, if you want to model the contrast in size you may find yourself wanting to use a larger ballast for the main than might otherwise be your first choice.
Dave Nelson
I find that any ballast marked “HO scale” looks just to big - especially on photographs. I use N scale ballast with good results.
I’m going to be contrary here, and say medium ballast. To my eye fine just doesn’t have enough texture for main line ballast. I also like the contrast between the medium on the high iron, and the fine I use in yard areas, and for gravel paving.
Nick
If you are using concrete ties, use the “medium” or “HO” ballast. Concrete ties often use heavier, larger sized ballast. I tend to use “fine” for most of my HO ballast needs.
I have experimented using both medium and fine. I think medium looks a little too big, it also seems to require more glue, which then causes the noise factor (this could just be due to my lack of experience and practice though).
I much prefer fine size ballast for HO scale, it requires much less glue, and looks more scale, at least to my eyes. Its much easier to shape along the tracks as well.
Example for fine/small/N-scale ballast on an HO-scale layout:
Mark
I use Medium Ballast it looks good but,like everybody has said I think the fine/small ballast would look better.
Smaller is better. I use Highball’s fine/N scale for HO scale. I don’t happen to like the WS product.
Same here…
Put me in the “smaller is better” group. Real ballast is on average 4-5" in most applications using crushed granite. Yard and siding ballast is a little smaller, but mixed with dirt so as to appear in many places little more than a continuation of the surrounding ground cover.
For HO scale, the N scale (or “fine” cut) ballast is a good choice for most applications. Perhaps a small amount of larger rock can be thrown in the mix, but I would keep that to a minimum. Remember to vary the color a bit, mix grey with a tad of cinder and maybe a smidgen of red oxide- and again keep the variance small. Less is more.
Hmmm. Are you sure about that? Anything is possible with the prototype it is said; however, I believe that ballast more typically ranges from 1+“- 2+” (maybe 3" max) and I am referring to mainline stone. 4"-5" is huge and would be difficult to tamp to a tight bed under and around the ties. I walked along a CSX/Amtrak main not long ago and saw nothing close to that size.
Of course, that reinforces your point about using small model ballast.
Dante
dante, yes, 4-5" is on the high side of the measurment, but I’ve seen a lot of mainline miles with that dimension of stone, particularly on Amtrak NE corridor concrete and in the Pacific NW. It’s not very hard to tamp stone of that size, a Jackson is not up to the task but a UNIMAT or CAT will make short work of it.
The caveat is, as it always is on real railroads, that it depends on the application and geography as to what size ballast is used. But I agree with you, it reinforces the logic to using the smallest ballast on our model railroads.
Four summers ago, I had an occasion to be at a CPR ballast quarry in south-central BC. There was a loader, a screening machine, a crusher, and several ballasting cars on a siding. I remarked that all of the visible pieces of ready-to-use ballast that was stockpiled could have fallen through a 2" screen with some shaking.
[D)] Right, got my dunce cap on. I made a simple, yet highly effective, error. By using the wrong side of my ruler I mistook 4-5 CENTIMETERS to read 4-5 INCHES. That makes the average 2- 2.5 inches. Sheesh, next time I’ll just grab the catenary wire to test the amperage…
Last night I glued down both Medium & Fine sizes of ballast from Woodland Scenics on the roundhouse code 83 tracks and found that I was not happy with the look of the fine. It is too small.
It measures .017" = 1.5”, which is the SMALLEST size you will find on RR ROW, not the biggest; and certainly not the average of what is actually driveway gravel size - not RR ballast. Ballast averages 1.5" - 2.5" “round”, 3" oval, and even up to 4"+ long on odd shapes.
I did find that it is immediately easier to spread Fine rock between code 83 track ties than Medium. It is also much easier to spread, in a thinner layer w/o holes, across the open spaces between the turntable tracks radiating apart from each other. It is also nice to have it to use to be able to get some definition between MROW work on the sidings and yard tracks to differentiate from the mainline. Unless you are using Code 70 track, Fine ballast from WS is too small for HO.
My advice to anyone using code 83 and code 100: do not use Fine ballast from WS straight from the container on your mainline. Either mix it with Medium to get a far more authentic result, or just use straight medium and save the fine for sidings, between ladder tracks, and as regular gravel for roads and MROW grade crossings in your RR yards, etc.
Happy Railroading!
GT Mills
Modeling the Pere Marquette & Chesapeake RR in HO
I prefer WS’s Fine ballast for my code 83 track, simply because it settles better than the medium, so looks less ragged, even though it’s out-of-scale for HO…
I used some real limestone on some of the track on the upper level of my layout, sifting a couple 50lb. bags of screenings through various sieves, with the final one a spatter guard for frying pans - the only thing I could find that would let the dust through, but not the ballast…
I think that it looks okay, but was a lot harder to spread, as it locks together, much the same as full-size rock ballast. Because of its weight, it does settle better than the WS medium ballast, though.
Much of the larger screened-out stuff will get used outdoors, but I’ll probably use some of the dust, mixed with very finely-powdered real dirt and perhaps some coloured tile grout, on some secondary track and industrial sidings.
Wayne
I agree with Wayne! I think that WS fine ballast looks the best. Unfortunately my fellow club members don’t agree. [:(] Democracy at work!
Dave